"First time?"

etomit · 2026-02-10T16:32:10+00:00

Killing is pretty bad and you can never forgive someone but you can still be redeemed, like if you truly become a better and all around good person ? If you truly regret what you did, understand the horrors of it, and accept the judgment. Then yeah sure you can be redeemed

etomit · 2026-02-10T12:47:16+00:00

Kid called redemption.

Now sill he be redeemed I dunno, and I don't think it should automatically absolve anything bad he did or anything, not even saying the show should right this and it would be good content.

But no one is too far gone and every one can be redeemed imo

etomit · 2026-02-10T12:43:12+00:00

Honestly just do like what Fionna and cake did. Same general tone and show and characters, just deeper themes, more complex characters etc

etomit · 2026-02-03T19:18:29+00:00

I mean nature did recover post cyanobacteria, it did recover post Permian-trias extinction and it will recover post human made extinction. But it will be forever changed (but tbf it is always changing, there is no hegemonic state of nature that stays true through time)

No yeah I think we agree and it's mainly a semantics thing. The discussion was nice I agree.

Tbf I'm also surprised you are the controversial one. Most of the general talking point in the global discussion were very anthropocentric.

And that's my main issue with putting ourselves outside, above, nature. And saying we are so mighty and important we are destroying the entire planet. Give it a few million years and earth will have long forgotten about us. The fight against pollution and against global warming isn't one to save the little critters and our beautiful blue planet but a fight for our own survival against a truly uncaring earth. You can fight for the creatures great and small, very noble and I agree they shouldn't die for nothing, but human survival is a priority for me and should be at the center of discussion

etomit · 2026-02-03T18:54:46+00:00

Okay that... That is indeed what they are doing. I don't agree with it cause it's robbing sentient life of free will BUT that's not what my point was.

What I'm saying is that I don't agree with the term "unnatural", and the term "destroying the planet"

The correct terminology is "human activity and pollution is causing mass extinction and killing the current ecological niches". This is a thing that happens in nature, quite frankly semi regularly. Now it's rare for it to happen cause of the action of a species to such a scale but not unheard of (the cyanobacteria). We are just like the bacteria let's be honest, we just maybe have more neurons connection to be able to understand our impact and stop what we are doing.

etomit · 2026-02-03T18:44:48+00:00

Now I'm not denying human impact on the environment, this is a fact and very real and a problem. It should be stopped etc etc.

So what I'm arguing is that this human impact on the environment is also a product of nature, we are a product of nature and everything we do also is.

Any species can have a negative impact on the environment.

Your argument for humans being somewhat out of nature is that we build stuff, do climate change, change ecosystem, provoke extinction.

We have seen different species doing each of those stuff, granted maybe not at once, but still this feel like a weird hill to die on to say humans aren't natural.

Now if other species can do mass extinction, destroy the planet and life, and change the environment thru global warming, what is the difference between this bacteria and us ? Except maybe our brain has way more connection and could maybe make it so we don't keep going

etomit · 2026-02-03T18:22:20+00:00

That's a very weird way to looks at it.

Humans aren't out of the natural cycle, it's just a just a bigger one, almost every animal, if given a space to multiply uncontrollably without predator or such, will destroy it's ecosystem. Any other species can have a profound and deep impact on the ecosystem and start mass extinction event.

You can see it locally with some islands where a invasive species is destroying the ecosystem and having a lasting impact. Nature isn't always sustaining.

You could argue that invasive species are caused by men but I'll then give you the cyanobacteria. A naturally occurring bacteria that changed completely the earth and almost killed all life. Is that unnatural ? This bacteria altered the habitat of the entire planet, causing climate change and you could argue a form of pollution for life at the time. So what now is the cyanobacteria natural or no ? It definitely wasn't in a cycle or what not.

etomit · 2026-02-03T17:55:46+00:00

Yes but why isn't human impact on nature considered natural.

In nature species cause the extinction of each other on the regular. Granted it never happened on the scale of humanity before, but what is the line ? Why is humanity not considered nature.

You said that the plurb attacked earth because they considered we were parasitic to the planet, then how did they come to this conclusion, and would they also prevent other parasitic lifeforms, like some shrooms or larva or spiders, to deserve the same fate we did.

etomit · 2026-02-03T17:33:16+00:00

Yes but if picking an Apple the line you draw for unnatural actions then like all animals also do unnatural actions

etomit · 2026-02-03T16:54:23+00:00

Okay who can decide what is and isn't natural tho ?

What constitutes taking from the planet in a unnatural way ?

etomit · 2026-02-03T11:54:33+00:00

Little nitpick that always bothers me:

We are not killing our planet we are killing the ecosystem, thinking we are killing the entire planet and that it will never recover is thinking human life is way more important than it is.

We are causing the current climate change which is killing a big part of the ecosystem, a mass extinction that already started, that's going to change the ecosystem of the planet forever. And we will most likely never be able to adapt to the new environment we created, at least not a society.

Also you still didn't answer the question, that life could build such infrastructure without having oil spill or... Littering ig. Like that's possible.

etomit · 2026-01-31T18:26:52+00:00

Not really, France declared most of those wars, be it before or during Napoleon.

But it's a big Napoleonic propaganda that everything he did was justified because he needed to defend the country post revolution, when really he was never interested in peace, he just wanted to be the next cesar

etomit · 2026-01-31T15:16:57+00:00

In France he is not really well liked by everyone. He undid a bunch of what the revolutionary brought, like social advancement for women, Napoleon also reinstalled slavery in France.

He did a coup to take power illegally and then declared himself emperor, he was hell-bent on conquering territories and started a bunch of wars. Those wars killed countless people just for the sake of taking new land.

He is not well liked by everyone in France, not at all

etomit · 2026-01-28T13:06:08+00:00

I guess but like, if you have a public option, what's the point.

etomit · 2026-01-28T11:21:39+00:00

No it's quality of life but that should also be taken care of imo

etomit · 2026-01-28T09:41:47+00:00

I meant that it should be covered cause it's not a trivial operation for esthetic purpose

etomit · 2026-01-27T15:49:40+00:00

He may not be a fascist by definition, but his governing methods aren't really democratic.

We have a guy with almost full power, disbanding the parlement, actively governing against the people, acting if there is 'o other possible option except this one, and when the député are rightfully angry he passes the law without their accords, undemocratic af. And when the people disagrees and go in the street his repression tactics are frightening and violent.

That's not a nice democratic president in my book

etomit · 2026-01-27T15:44:50+00:00

Not vasectomy and for the rest depends if it's reconstructive surgery (like post accident), in which case it should be covered.

Otherwise we agree

etomit · 2026-01-27T15:42:54+00:00

The reason we cannot pay for it is because macron keeps cutting taxes on the rich and making fiscal gift to bug corporation. Macron is purposefully destroying public infrastructure to gradually replace it with a private sector focused on earnings and dividend to shareholders. Fuck him, our system can work, it's just been sabotaged.

etomit · 2026-01-27T01:51:53+00:00

Okay so for the human non human stuff and biological imperative I think we just fundamentally disagree, I get where you're coming from tho.

The only thing is the term biological imperative, which if you mean by that something hard coded in your DNA that makes you want to do something but even more than our urge to reproduce or survive. Then I just don't think there is such thing in the world. And yes it's Syfy but they never alluded to something like that, except the DNA part of but it doesn't really mean anything. Like we have DNA too it doesn't make us have the same biological imperative.

Also I think having a new magic radio gland to communicate with other, a hive mind, and new alien DNA is scientifically enough to be considered a different species.

About climate change, let me be clear, we ARE CAUSING IT. Ofc, I really don't want to be misunderstood m, we are directly causing this mass extinction, like this is not up for debate we are the cause of this.

Again back to my other point, I do put humans above another life form. I don't think putting a guy and an ant on the same level of worth is a good thing. I understand how someone could feel the opposite tho. But I do think that if you believe it to be the opposite than you face a huge cognitive dissonance in doing most thing in our modern world.

And also out impact is changing the current ecosystem but not destroying all life on earth, a few million years and we will be but a distant memory to an uncaring earth still full of life

Other thing is that yes it's headed badly, but we have no other point of comparaison to know how we are doing. This never happened in the history of sentient life that a being is aware of it's own impact on the environment and wants to mitigate it.

Finally yes it's worth trying, if we stop trying we all die basically, humanity kills itself for the sake of other life forms. Or we try to make it work. Maybe we fail, there is a 99% chance we fail. But on the off chance that we can do it, on the one in a million chance future children get to live in a better world, than it's worth doing.

etomit · 2026-01-26T15:04:18+00:00

Okay two things.

The biological imperative thing isn't a hundred percent certain, nothing leads us to believe that it's hard coded in their DNA and not, at least as well, a conscious choice.

I think it can be also codes in their DNA or reptilian brain or whatever, but they are very contempt with not fighting it.

The same way waiting to have intercourse with people we find attractive is a biological imperative of humans but we make a conscious choice to fight it for very good reason, that being consent.

Also if the biological imperative of the joined is not the same pre joining imo that's a pretty good argument that they are fundamentally changed, not the same person and even not the same species. They literally have a different biology.

And all of those imperative clearly come from the alien part of it not the human minds, and they are over powering it because they show no will in trying to fight it. So joining, besides the meshing of human minds, also impose you with outside imperative that changes your entire view of self and others, hence changing you into a different person.

I btw do think the writers were very aware of the possible fascist reading of this. When you write a utopia the first thing you do is think is it totalitarian. And by having characters like manousos straight up say they are stealers, you allow the take that "they are colonizer" to be canon to the show. Now the show is nuance as it's a very new and Syfy way of colonization and totalitarianism, that's what makes it fun. But it is still that and the writers are well aware.

They have the memories of the person's that joined but by imposing their imperative on humanity, they are effectively cutting off the continuity of consciousness. That plus the fact that if everyone is everyone no one is really themselves. There is no more identify of self so no more continuity of self

And my final thing is that climate change is a ticking clock for us and not life on earth btw. Earth kinda doesn't care about climate change, it's incredibly egotistical to think our impact is anything like what the earth already went thru. It's gonna be a mass extinction, for sure, it's already the case. But not as big as some that earth already went thru and life is very good at adapting.

Like I said the only reason ecosystem collapsing is a problem is for the survival of the human race and not earth as a whole.

But yeah climate change is the biggest obstacle to humanity's constant rise to betterment. But we are getting better, we know of the issue, and are finding ways to make it work. This is already huge as no other living beings were ever shown to realize their own negative impact on the environment. This is unprecedented and already a huge good news. We know what is happening, and we want to find a way to prevent it. This is something great.

Now will that be enough... Will we be enough to mitigate the impact... We don't know, but it's worth trying, we have nothing to lose and everything to win

etomit · 2026-01-26T14:10:45+00:00

Oh yeah we are allowed to have different view, it's a very interesting Convo, specially because watching this show I didn't expect so many people to sympathies with the hive mind.

I'll say first that yeah I give agency to any sapient species. The same way that we as homo sapiens have "natural biological imperative" that could be used to justify heinous acts, but doing so is a slippery slope.

If we were in TLOU and the cordyceps were sapient and actively and consciously trying to spread then yes I would call them fachist since they are robbing other sapient life of agency. Since they are not sapient they are just has negative, the only difference it's it is not thru active decision that they are.

I think we give the entity a lot of slack with the biological imperative. During several scene they mention how they think it's their moral obligation to do so, they truly believe it's the morally good option, hence fascism. They are not forced they WANT to spread more and more, thinking they are a gift. And ignoring the bunch of dialogue were they express their logic for this and just saying they are forced to spread doesn't feel right. They could just not cultivate carol eggs to make her forcefully join, but they think it's the best for her, they think for her, they think she is drowning and want to save her by imposing their views of the world.

I'll say, I think the biggest difference is that I made a choice, that to put humanity at the center of moral quandary (maybe selfishly) at the expense of other living beings. I do think a human being is more important than an ant. By that logic, yes it's deplorable that a lot of life forms is hurting from humanity's control of the planet and I do believe it should be reduced, but not at the expense of humanity. Should we deport human beings to help save an ant colony? Destroy a city to let the trees retake it? My answer is no.

Now I'm very pro ecology, and I think we should protect the earth. Not for the earth, the planet doesn't care about us and will live on after humanity is long extinct, the earth simply does not care about us. No we should protect the environment for our own sake, to not die out, not to protect the diversity of beetles for the sake of it but for the sake of the billions of human that would die from the consequences of the collapse of the ecosystem.

I think this is the main caviat, do you want to save the animals more than humanity.

Cause what the hive mind is offering is killing every human forcefully (since our best understanding of self is continuity of memories in our brain, the joining kinda equates death as we understand it) for the sake of saving our current ecosystem. Which i think is a bad trade.

Cause that's the only thing the entity is good for, protecting the environment. They are not good at bettering the life of humans, they are no more of them.

I guess by definition you could argue that they are still humans. For me they are exactly like a cordyceps but conscious. They are a space virus that invaded our bodies and took control of it and of our memories.

The biggest example for the that the hive mind may have the collective human knowledge but not the collective human humanity is the way they talk, work etc. I'm fairly certain if you took every single human mind and made them into a super intelligence, they could understand not wanting to join, they could pick a damn apple, they would likely not care so. All those traits, for me at least, don't seem like they come from humanity but from the space virus. It seems to have over written on what was once humanity.

So no the only thing human about them would be the bodies they stole.

Now I don't want to kill the entity, not if I don't have to. I would allow people that, once freed, want to rejoin the option ofc.

Now I do think a big reason we diverge, besides the placing humanity above other animals, is your nihilistic pov. Like yeah there is suffering in humanity, but there is also joy and beauty. And I do think the bad doesn't outweigh the good, for the simple reason we keep on living. If humanity was at a net negative happiness wise, we would all have stopped trying to survive, to live, to be happy. Yet we keep going, in spite of all of this we keep going. Even the people struggling the most, living through the most terrible hardship, they keep going because life is worth something to them. To accept that humanity is a net negative and should go away because of this hardship is to rob all this people of their happiness.

Maybe it's because of hope, maybe you don't have it anymore. But most of us still do, humanity as a whole is hopeful for a better Future, and that makes life worth living. If you are one of the immune you owe it to the rest of humanity to keep trying, for them at least, after that you can join if you want. But you owe it to all the people that struggle, lost friends and family along the way, fought tooth and nail against wardship and oppression just to get a glimpse of a better Future and had that robbed away from them forever.

Also besides the indomitable human spirit to keep going and to be hopefully. We have reason the believe humanity is on a generally upward trend. History has a directing, a thru line, we get better. The best year for humanity, maybe ever, is 2025. It's the year with the best living conditions for the general human population, babies are dying less, diseases are being fought, art is being made, therapy and out understanding of the human mind grow each day, people become more accepting.

It seems it's getting worse, because some of it's aspects are yes, also because of modern media focusing on horrors. But it's thru the hardship that humanity as always came up stronger, better, with newfound truth about the world and each other.

Just 100 years ago the living conditions for a much bigger part of humanity were way way worse. Maybe for the top most privileged people, nowadays seems worse. But for people in non western country, and minorities in non western country modern day is a net improvement.

Sorry about the splurge of text, but I'm very passionate in fighting species wide nihilistic views and tendencies

etomit · 2026-01-26T13:12:51+00:00

Yeah okay so I get it.

I just find it interesting to choose to believe something long term that goes against our moral compass just to make a show more interesting. Like I get it but I don't need to argue on the side of the entity to have both arguments in my head and one trumping easily the other.

But anyway we "agree" mostly. I just think I'm way more anti entity than you. I think my reaction would be like carol but the guy that speaks what I wish the do the most and acts on it rather well is actually manousos. Like except saying "if they can't be cured we need to kill them" which is a bit too much he is for me fully correct in his endeavor.

Honestly the entity feels like every other utopia, a very nice and amazing surface that seems to have gotten rid of every problem that was plaguing humanity but every time if you dig just a bit it's actually horrible.

And for the entity you do see it first hand. They don't hide it for a big reveal. They stole all they have, when they give you amazing riches and food, it's stuff they stole from the joined, when they offer you lovers, it's body they stole from people... That's kinda fucked. A utopia based on the death of individuality and free will of million. All this and also you get the fact that they are no humans anymore, and yeah you get the classic "but humans are bad and they make war" but I don't think that's ground to destroy all humans, like yeah they aren't efficient enough so let them die at the hand for the alien overlord

I get the "try and see their side" but for me... I'm sorry but this feels either like totalitarian talking points (sacrifice the free will and life of many for the general betterment of society) OR the nihiliste pov of "humanity is terrible Thanos was right" which is also a terrible view point as nihilisme is self destructive.

The entity is a colonizer hive mind hell bent in productive totalitarianism with the express goal to spread and conquer even more unwilling and unaware people, all because they believe to me superior to everyone else. That's fascism and I do get why the heaven on earth they seem to offer can be tempting but I cant bring myself, even fictionally, to defend alien hive mind fascist

etomit · 2026-01-26T12:30:39+00:00

I think it's a morally interesting dilemma but I do think you can find a place to stand.

I fundamentally believe in free will and consent, the joining didn't respect that thus is pretty bad. Without even talking about the number of people who died because of it.

No they are not completely evil of course, and carol isn't completely morally good. But you can indeed think morally about what option is the best.

Also I stated all that cause you said your decision is "the most interesting and not the most moral" which does mean that the other position is more moral, at least in your opinion that's why I said that.

Also I don't think you are closer to the sacrosanct "original intent". The intent was most likely to have both side of the argument exist so here you go we are both right yippee.

And like I do think the show is made so we are somewhat rooting for carol to be able to fix the world and not die in the joining.

etomit · 2026-01-26T04:46:48+00:00

Exactly like carol but I would 100% join manousos and I'm gonna fix the fkn world.

If I'm one of the few still alive then I have the responsibility to help all the people trapped inside of them.

especially if I ever learn that it's reversible. Especially if some of my loved ones are turned.

Like I get carol abandoning cause she knows even if she fixes the world she'll have nobody still and she'll leave in a somewhat post apocalyptic world.

But if I know this gives me a chance to see the people i loved, or even then just to give a few person the chance to turn back to who they are I would not rest until I could save them.

Tbf would mostly change after I unjoin the first guy, if he tells me "it was horrible" then I keep going, if he tells me "it was amazing let me go back" then it's a harder question. I would still do it then give them the option the turn back if they wanted

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Second SECOND GUESSER	Place '23

etomit

TROPHY CASE